The universe is in a high energy state of perpetual newness all the time. We live in and of this energy, in the only moment that ever is, the present. This is the pure innocent mind of infancy. This is when we are dazzled and awed by everything we see.

Then we learn to think. We translate real impressions into objects of thought. That is, we become more observant of recurring impressions. These impressions become increasingly substantial thoughts. We begin to arrange these thoughts into various orders. We begin to exercise reason. After that, we get lost in our thoughts. This is where we slowly construct the concepts of separation and of time.

We do not live in time. Our world is beyond time. But sadly our reasoning creates the illusion of time. This is because we become overwhelmed by our thoughts.

Thoughts are constructed out of memories. Memories are the structural material of thinking. Example: To think of a bird is to remember what a bird looks like and how it acts. The memory becomes a symbol for later recollection about the same or similar ideas. The symbol becomes a word to use in written and spoken language. We do this with all natural things.

We make a word for everything. We are buried beneath words. We see only the words, although the sun still shines and the birds still sing.

There does appear to exist a chronological sequence of events that people use when arguing in favor of the reality of time. But what precisely is a “chronological sequence of events”? The events we are lining up into a time sequence are only generalizations of actualities. These generalizations are not the actualities themselves.

Actualities are fused by nature into an unbroken continuum. The pattern-seeking abilities of our minds look for logically related impressions in this continuum and then describe them as chronological or spatial sequences of events. But these events are really only vague, mental thought-things, concepts, which we have synthesized from real experience. They are not real actual things that exist outside of thought.

JamesEubank wrote:Yeah, an experiment is necessary to make concept, after the thoughts were originated...

I suppose I am coming from a phenomenological point of view... but I'm serious about it, all the same.

Thanks for jumping in. It's been a long while since I've been at Textkit, and I have sincerely missed it. This wonderful website is never far from my thoughts. I will try to frequent it again, at least for another while; and this philosophical discussion is a great place to re-start my acquaintance.